It is impossible to lose business from people who are already using your IP without paying you.

If they are given the choice between pay up or stop using the software some may pay some may use something else but, even if none of them pay, you are losing no business.

The lost customers are those who were previously or potentially buying, not always the infringers. When a large company sues an individual for obscene amounts of money, it can look bad to some people. It isn't a matter of who is right, it's a matter of scale and perception. I am not one of those people because I can't possibly keep track of labels, publishers or studios, but there certainly people who do and make their buying decisions accordingly.

The lost customers are those who were previously or potentially buying, not always the infringers. When a large company sues an individual for obscene amounts of money, it can look bad to some people. It isn't a matter of who is right, it's a matter of scale and perception. I am not one of those people because I can't possibly keep track of labels, publishers or studios, but there certainly people who do and make their buying decisions accordingly.

Why do you assume that paying customers are against companies suing freeloaders that get the same services for free? You are correct about the obscene amounts of money demanded in those lawsuits, but I am sure most paying customers want prices to be lower, which can only happen if companies can find ways to stem such losses.

It is impossible to lose business from people who are already using your IP without paying you.

This is inconsistent with the many claims I've read on this board that pirates are the music world's best customers.

Many, maybe most, people who now pay for books would think themselves suckers if they knew how easy it allegedly is to download them for free. Unless they wanted to become bigger suckers, they would stop buying.

While there are plenty of people who buy bottled water because their local tapwater doesn't taste good (or, sometimes, is actually unsafe), the bottled-water industry didn't take off because of them. It took off because people will pay the same price for water that they will for soda--if it's convenient and cold when they want it.

This sounds like cold comfort for authors. Don't most people still drink tap water?

I recall that Consumer Reports article where the blind test testers preferred the New York City tap water

Why do you assume that paying customers are against companies suing freeloaders that get the same services for free? You are correct about the obscene amounts of money demanded in those lawsuits, but I am sure most paying customers want prices to be lower, which can only happen if companies can find ways to stem such losses.

That would be an interesting experiment - stop piracy and see whether prices drop.
I know which way I'd be betting.

Why do you assume that paying customers are against companies suing freeloaders that get the same services for free? You are correct about the obscene amounts of money demanded in those lawsuits, but I am sure most paying customers want prices to be lower, which can only happen if companies can find ways to stem such losses.

Because, as I said, it's a matter of perception. Big corporations are already demonized just by virtue of being big corporations. Lawsuits that go after one individual seeking huge amounts of cash make them look like bullies to some consumers.

And really, does anyone believe for one second that any cost savings would be passed on to consumers?

Why do you assume that paying customers are against companies suing freeloaders that get the same services for free? You are correct about the obscene amounts of money demanded in those lawsuits, but I am sure most paying customers want prices to be lower, which can only happen if companies can find ways to stem such losses.

That only works if the piracy is "losses." If it's not actually taking profits away, but only providing the works to people who otherwise would not have paid to them, ending piracy is likely to *drop* profits, as word-of-mouth recommendations will drop with the readership.

All the serious studies indicate that piracy is a side-effect of popularity, and doesn't seem to have any impact one way or the other on sales.

Charlie Stross pointed out that, traditionally, 75% of readers don't pay into an author's income stream. Trying to remove that 75% from the readership means losing a large section of the fanbase of a book--if the only readers are those who paid for it new, once the work gets recommended to someone who can't afford it today, it's forgotten, and that rec stream ends.

Charlie Stross pointed out that, traditionally, 75% of readers don't pay into an author's income stream. Trying to remove that 75% from the readership . . .

No one is trying to restrict 75% (or whatever the figure really is) who legally borrow books, I presume mostly from public libraries. What some are trying to do is to tell the 25% percent, that they can, without guilt, grab the book illegally and keep it permanently.

No one is trying to restrict 75% (or whatever the figure really is) who legally borrow books, I presume mostly from public libraries.

75% of readers don't borrow from libraries. They borrow from friends; they buy used; they are given someone else's finished copy. These options don't legitimately exist for most ebooks, and from the reader's perspective, it seems that authors don't want fans; they want customers.

Quote:

What some are trying to do is to tell the 25% percent, that they can, without guilt, grab the book illegally and keep it permanently.

Giggles is trying to claim that. The rest of us are trying to figure out how literary culture can continue--how it can work at all--if the way the majority of books have been read for centuries is removed in the ebook system.

What's the ebook solution for the 75% of paper readers who never directly supported a specific author with income? Should they just ignore that author's works? Do authors believe that a readerbase 1/4 the size they'd get for print will support them?

75% of readers don't borrow from libraries. They borrow from friends; they buy used; they are given someone else's finished copy. These options don't legitimately exist for most ebooks, and from the reader's perspective, it seems that authors don't want fans; they want customers.

Giggles is trying to claim that. The rest of us are trying to figure out how literary culture can continue--how it can work at all--if the way the majority of books have been read for centuries is removed in the ebook system.

What's the ebook solution for the 75% of paper readers who never directly supported a specific author with income? Should they just ignore that author's works? Do authors believe that a readerbase 1/4 the size they'd get for print will support them?

Not disputing although I do not totally agree.

In my personal experience there is a whole new category of readers out there.

The professional people who did not use libraries, would not be caught dead in a second hand bookstore and only occasionaly bought books while waiting for a plane.

Tha ability to buy books wirelessly has turned many into reading fiends. They don't care about DRM, they mostly don't even care about price. They do care about what others are reading, as in it is almost a status thing to read Game of Thrones. Above all they care about convenience. They make $30 to above $200 an hour and if married, spouse makes the same.

For the most part they are a new category in reading people and look to me to be able to support a significant amount of ebook sales. These people must die or run out of cash before prices drop

Because, as I said, it's a matter of perception. Big corporations are already demonized just by virtue of being big corporations. Lawsuits that go after one individual seeking huge amounts of cash make them look like bullies to some consumers.

And really, does anyone believe for one second that any cost savings would be passed on to consumers?

Well, when people just take what they want without paying for it..., I can at least appreciate their anger and willingness to try to get back at those people, even when they do overreact.

That savings will be passed on to consumers is a lot more likely than that pirates will be paying when buying is cheap and convenient. That only works for ridiculously low amounts like $1.

Well, when people just take what they want without paying for it..., I can at least appreciate their anger and willingness to try to get back at those people, even when they do overreact.

Yes, like buying a paper book second hand or borrowing a paper book from a friend. Which according to you is taking what they want without paying for it. So why did we not see this anger in these cases?

Yes, like buying a paper book second hand or borrowing a paper book from a friend. Which according to you is taking what they want without paying for it. So why did we not see this anger in these cases?

People make the comparisons which support their beliefs and ignore the others. Fact is, the digital world is a whole new playing field and everything must change including laws, sales and marketing. These are the turbulent times.